Using google to drive presidential debate and catch a lie
See it wasn’t that difficult. At yesterday’s presidential debate Hillary Clinton put paid to whether Donald Trump was telling lies or not by introducing corroborating evidence by asking the millions of television watchers to google “Donald Trump Iraq”. This time the robust shake of the head wouldn’t work. On that link, the evidence was there.
This what I wrote, below on the 30th September to fact check.
When a lie is NOT a lie in Trump or alt world.
Trump says something controversial. His opponents pick him up on it and he denies he ever said it.
Later, someone doing their home work properly juxtaposes Trump’s statements against his former contradictory points.
Trump says he was against the Iraq war. On Howard Stern’s radio show produced before his volte-face, he indicates he’s for it.
However, this all misses a critical and crucial point when Trump makes his penrose stairs comments. No immediate evidence is made available at that moment to the 100 million plus television watchers. As far as they’re concerned it’s your word against the other.
It’s the equivalent of a newspaper defaming someone on page one in a high profile news event and then finding they got it wrong offering a retracted apology on page 15, column 4, six days later.
If you’re Trump’s public relation’s team, of course you can go on advising your client to hold his ground because the opportunity to hear Trump’s contradictions will never be aired in close proximity.
It’s obvious what you do next, except his opponents keep making the same mistake. His ‘lie’ is not a lie until you can provide what He actually said in situ. Of course any measure to roll that VT in real time won’t happen on any of the debates but what if you collated them into an easy to remember url and referred to them for the user to check.
It might go some way, that is if you’re a second screener but to many of his constituents without a screen it’s not a lie — and then so what if it is?
The moral implication of telling a lie, and how that erodes trust is perhaps yet to be pressed home like its should.